Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Re: It is a very bad idea and nothing less than stupid to define 1/3
= 0.333...

Replies: 42   Last Post: Oct 9, 2017 11:53 AM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 FromTheRafters Posts: 248 Registered: 12/20/15
Re: It is a very bad idea and nothing less than stupid to define 1/3 = 0.333...
Posted: Oct 5, 2017 9:43 PM

Jim Burns has brought this to us :
> On 10/5/2017 3:12 PM, netzweltler wrote:
>> Am Donnerstag, 5. Oktober 2017 17:59:25 UTC+2
>> schrieb Jim Burns:

>>> On 10/5/2017 10:00 AM, netzweltler wrote:
>>>> Am Donnerstag, 5. Oktober 2017 15:22:35 UTC+2
>>>> schrieb Jim Burns:

>
>>> [...]
>>>>> _We don't do what you're describing_
>>>>
>>>> Nevertheless,

>>>
>>> "Nevertheless"?
>>> Do you agree that what you're describing
>>> is not what we're doing?

>
> *NETZWELTLER*
> DO YOU AGREE THAT WHAT YOU'RE DOING
> IS NOT WHAT WE'RE DOING?
>
> I think you do agree.
> This a pretty fundamental requirement:
> When you criticize what someone is doing,
> criticize _what they are doing_ and not something else.
>

>>>> the process
>>>> 0 |-> write 0.9
>>>> 1 |-> append another 9 (to the 0.9 already written)
>>>> 2 |-> append another 9 (to the 0.99 already written)
>>>> ...
>>>> results in 0.999...
>>>>
>>>> Whereas the process you specified earlier
>>>> 0 |-> 0.9
>>>> 1 |-> 0.99
>>>> 2 |-> 0.999
>>>>  ...
>>>> is nothing else but an infinite list of terminating decimals.

>>>
>>> Right. Nothing else but an infinite list of terminating decimals,
>>> which presents no problem, right?
>>>
>>> And we (meaning _we_ whether or not you include yourself)
>>> assign the value of the least upper bound of that list
>>> to the non-terminating decimal 0.999...
>>>
>>> I'm guessing you don't have a problem with the LUB either,
>>> _But this is what we do_

>>
>> We obviously agree that the process you specified earlier
>> 0 |-> 0.9
>> 1 |-> 0.99
>> 2 |-> 0.999
>>  ...
>> is nothing else but an infinite list of terminating decimals.

>
> It think it is also obvious that you have no problem with
> an infinite list of terminating decimals.
>

>> What you don't want to see is, that the process
>> 0 |-> write 0.9
>> 1 |-> append another 9 (to the 0.9 already written)
>> 2 |-> append another 9 (to the 0.99 already written)
>> ...
>> results in 0.999...
>>
>> Maybe you cannot see that I am not writing a new number
>> in a new line at each step - as in your process. I am
>> appending the 9s in the same line. So I am not creating
>> an infinite list of terminating decimals. I am creating
>> a single non-terminating decimal. The append operations
>> are representing addition operations - infinitely many

>
> Suppose, for the sake of argument, that _everything_ that
> you have said about what *you* mean by 0.999... is true.
> Why does it matter, if it doesn't apply to what *we* mean
> by 0.999... ?
>
> *You* give a meaning to 0.999... that involves infinitely
> many addition operations, and then *you* find a problem with
> the meaning that *you* gave 0.999... -- a meaning which is
> *NOT* the meaning *we* give to 0.999... So what?
>
> I mean, fine. Whatever. Let me grant, for the sake of argument,
> _every error_ that you point out about what *you* mean is
> in fact an error. Whoopsie! We'll just have to fix that right
> now: We "now" evaluate infinite decimals in a way that avoids
> infinite multiplications, whatever they may be. End of problem.
> we shouldn't do before you made your argument, but never mind.
> _There is no problem_
>
> Let me remind you what we're talking about:
>
> <Burns<netzweltler>>
>

> > Do you agree that 0.999... means infinitely many
> > commands
> > Add 0.9 + 0.09
> > Add 0.99 + 0.009
> > Add 0.999 + 0.0009
> > ...?

>
> 0.999... does not mean infinitely many commands.
>
> </Burns<netzweltler>>

In fact, I think one could say that the 0.999... decimal expansion
representation is the result of having taken the non-terminating
decimal expansion representation of, the limit of, the infinte sum as
he "builds" above (.9 + .09 +.009 + .0009 ad infinitum) and doing
infinitely many truncations thus ending up with the 0.999... notation
and the elipsis represents that infinitely many truncation commands had

That is to say, he might have it exactly backward. The infinite work
had to be done to arrive at the particular decimal expansion
representation which he wants to start at. The repeating decimal
expansion representation was constructed previously and he is trying to
deconstruct it by re-appending what was previously truncated.

From Wikipedia:

"The customary acceptance of the fact that any real number x has a
decimal expansion is an implicit acknowledgment that a particular
Cauchy sequence of rational numbers (whose terms are the successive
truncations of the decimal expansion of x) has the real limit x."

Date Subject Author
10/2/17 Guest
10/2/17 netzweltler
10/2/17 Jim Burns
10/3/17 netzweltler
10/3/17 FromTheRafters
10/3/17 Jim Burns
10/3/17 FromTheRafters
10/3/17 Jim Burns
10/3/17 FromTheRafters
10/3/17 netzweltler
10/3/17 bursejan@gmail.com
10/4/17 netzweltler
10/3/17 FromTheRafters
10/3/17 Jim Burns
10/3/17 FromTheRafters
10/3/17 netzweltler
10/3/17 Jim Burns
10/4/17 netzweltler
10/4/17 Jim Burns
10/4/17 netzweltler
10/5/17 Jim Burns
10/5/17 netzweltler
10/5/17 Jim Burns
10/5/17 netzweltler
10/5/17 Jim Burns
10/5/17 netzweltler
10/5/17 Jim Burns
10/5/17 FromTheRafters
10/6/17 netzweltler
10/6/17 Jim Burns
10/7/17 FromTheRafters
10/8/17 FromTheRafters
10/8/17 netzweltler
10/8/17 Jim Burns
10/8/17 netzweltler
10/8/17 Jim Burns
10/9/17 netzweltler
10/9/17 Jim Burns
10/9/17 netzweltler
10/9/17 Jim Burns
10/7/17 Jim Burns